Purpose: The objective was to compare laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients with clinical stage I to IIA uterine cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (n = 1,696) or open laparotomy (n = 920), including hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic cytology, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The main study end points were 6-week morbidity and mortality, hospital length of stay, conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy, recurrence-free survival, site of recurrence, and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Results: Laparoscopy was initiated in 1,682 patients and completed without conversion in 1,248 patients (74.2%). Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was secondary to poor visibility in 246 patients (14.6%), metastatic cancer in 69 patients (4.1%), bleeding in 49 patients (2.9%), and other cause in 70 patients (4.2%). Laparoscopy had fewer moderate to severe postoperative adverse events than laparotomy (14% v 21%, respectively; P < .0001) but similar rates of intraoperative complications, despite having a significantly longer operative time (median, 204 v 130 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Hospitalization of more than 2 days was significantly lower in laparoscopy versus laparotomy patients (52% v 94%, respectively; P < .0001). Pelvic and para-aortic nodes were not removed in 8% of laparoscopy patients and 4% of laparotomy patients (P < .0001). No difference in overall detection of advanced stage (stage IIIA, IIIC, or IVB) was seen (17% of laparoscopy patients v 17% of laparotomy patients; P = .841). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgical staging for uterine cancer is feasible and safe in terms of short-term outcomes and results in fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. Follow-up of these patients will determine whether surgical technique impacts pattern of recurrence or disease-free survival.

Purpose: The primary objective was to establish noninferiority of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for recurrence after surgical staging of uterine cancer.Patients and Methods: Patients with clinical stages I to IIA disease were randomly allocated (two to one) to laparoscopy (n = 1,696) versus laparotomy (n = 920) for hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic cytology, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The primary study end point was noninferiority of recurrence-free interval defined as no more than a 40% increase in the risk of recurrence with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy.Results: With a median follow-up time of 59 months for 2,181 patients still alive, there were 309 recurrences (210 laparoscopy; 99 laparotomy) and 350 deaths (229 laparoscopy; 121 laparotomy). The estimated hazard ratio for laparoscopy relative to laparotomy was 1.14 (90% lower bound, 0.92; 95% upper bound, 1.46), falling short of the protocol-specified definition of noninferiority. However, the actual recurrence rates were substantially lower than anticipated, resulting in an estimated 3-year recurrence rate of 11.4% with laparoscopy and 10.2% with laparotomy, or a difference of 1.14% (90% lower bound, −1.28; 95% upper bound, 4.0). The estimated 5-year overall survival was almost identical in both arms at 89.8%.Conclusion: This study previously reported that laparoscopic surgical management of uterine cancer is superior for short-term safety and length-of-stay end points. The potential for increased risk of cancer recurrence with laparoscopy versus laparotomy was quantified and found to be small, providing accurate information for decision making for women with uterine cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of two different intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy regimens on progression-free survival (PFS) among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once per week with intravenous (IV) carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IV carboplatin) versus IV paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once per week with IP carboplatin area under the curve 6 (IP carboplatin) versus once every 3 weeks IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m² over 3 hours day 1, IP cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 2, and IP paclitaxel 60 mg/m² day 8 (IP cisplatin). All participants received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in cycles 2 to 22. RESULTS: A total of 1,560 participants were enrolled and had 84.8 months of follow-up. The median PFS duration was 24.9 months in the IV carboplatin arm, 27.4 months in the IP carboplatin arm, and 26.2 months in the IP cisplatin arm. For the subgroup of 1,380 patients with stage II/III and residual disease of 1 cm or less, median PFS was 26.9 (IV-carboplatin), 28.7 (IP-carboplatin), and 27.8 months (IP cisplatin), respectively. Median PFS for patients with stage II/III and no residual disease was 35.9, 38.8, and 35.5 months, respectively. Median overall survival for all enrolled was 75.5, 78.9, and 72.9 months, respectively, and median overall survival for stage II/III with no gross residual disease was 98.8 months, 104.8 months, and not reached. Mean patient-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy neurotoxicity scores (Gynecologic Oncology Group) were similar for all arms, but the mean Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Ovary scores during chemotherapy were statistically worse in the IP cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with the IV carboplatin reference arm, the duration of PFS was not significantly increased with either IP regimen when combined with bevacizumab and was better tolerated than IP cisplatin.